Pleasedo not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them toWikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of thequeues here, please include alink to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There are currently7 filledqueues – all good, for now!
DYK is running12-hour sets. There are currently29 empty slots in the preps, not counting the bottom prep.
I am interested in putting together a themed set for March 8, which isInternational Women's Day. Some article ideas for the set (in no particular order) and the article's DYK nomination status are below:
@Viriditas: Since there are several "women did something" hooks at DYK, my plan for this set is to focus on hooks about women's rights or significant milestones for women (like the first female leader of a country). If it gets closer to the date and the set has some empty slots, I think we can backfill with women-does-stuff hooks.Z1720 (talk)14:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No need to backfill. I would rather create a new one to meet the requirements of the set. Will try to get something off the ground today.Viriditas (talk)21:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will continue working on it (and anyone else is welcome to do so as well). If you want to make suggestions about potential hooks that would be helpful as I can start working them in. My initial concern was that this topic had already been covered on Wikipedia. But I see now, at least on English Wikipedia, that only the names of the researchers and organizations have been discussed, not the subject or problem in any depth. If someone wants to correct me on that, please do so, as I don't want to re-invent the wheel.Viriditas (talk)00:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the images off the page, as these seem to be the key thing stopping this page from going through the DYK process. Hopefully this sorts this issue? Let me know if there is anything more I can do.CuriosityKat33 (talk)05:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ScalarFactor: I would like first-consideration articles to have a closer connection to the advancement of women's rights or opportunities (suffragette movement, being the first female to accomplish something, declaration concerning advancement of female rights, etc.) If there are still spots available, this would be a good article to backfill with.Z1720 (talk)21:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Both of these are great in the "woman does stuff" category, which I think will be used to backfill if there aren't enough hooks. For the set, I think it is better to prioritize women and events that concern woman's rights, equality and liberation.Z1720 (talk)23:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does any Wikipedia employee or automated process review DYK nominations to prevent articles unsuitable for minors being displayed? On Feb 5, 2026 an article for porn star Thea Ehre and the "Porn Film Festival Vienna" was featured. It stood out because I've noticed other articles that I thought I wouldn't want my kids looking at when they're supposed to be doing homework. Don't @me about "freedom of speech" or "open society" - I'm talking about the same safeguards Meta, YouTube, X, etc., are mandated to enforce to prevent minors from accessing harmful images and material. I'm not saying that the articles should be removed from Wikipedia, just that they shouldn't be featured on the main page like other news items and relevant topics. I don't see anything about guidelines in the DYK/Guidelines. What is the policy? If there is no policy, why not?~2026-80282-3 (talk)17:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There currently isn't any policy preventing adult content on the main page. The long and the short of it is, wikipedia isWP:NOTCENSORED. Also of relevance isWikipedia:Offensive material policy. There is an essay atWikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page, but essays are not policies. This is a perennial issue that comes up when certain nominations are viewed as offensive. I've seen editors work to find less controversial hooks in review as a means of controlling content, but outright rejecting an article because it is controversial/perceived as offensive is not allowed under NOTCENSORED policy. At DYK we have comply with the wider guideline4meter4 (talk)17:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question hasa single photograph, which is not gratuitous in any way, and thePorn Film Festival Vienna article itself does not include explicit written depictions of sex acts. It discusses the subject in a very neutral tone: "Film showings may be followed by live interviews with the filmmakers."
TheMain Page is written and maintained by volunteer editors, not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. (This conversation is itself a part of the process.) There is no separate Foundation- or staff-level review of DYK hooks.
The Main Page is covered by the same range of policies and guidelines that apply to other parts of the encyclopedia. A relevant guideline is in the section underWP:GRATUITOUS. A DYK guideline section that covers this is atWP:DYKGRAT. In contrast,Britannica hasBritannica Kids for separate target age ranges. For Wikipedia, the closest analogues right now are the third-party projects, likeKiddle, which curate the freely licensed articles here. Kiddle's articles onsex anddeath illustrate the tradeoff involved: greater suitability for children, but at the cost of significant reduction in educational content. Hope that helps!Rjjiii (talk)02:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find their "don't @me" comment and general air of "y'all should do things my way or you're just evil, child haters" attitude far more shitty than anything I have ever said. We should not go easy on attempted censors. Make it clear to them that they are not welcome here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)16:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
…no, reading the OP, they’re “a concerned neighbour” type who fears we must think of the children before any reasonable logic and wanted to kick off. As noted, why would an encyclopaedia censor anything, and if you’re so scared of kids seeing the word porn, that’s not anyone else’s problem. They’re also delusional if they think teenagers are unaware of porn, and not well-versed in the (useless) age protection laws they cite if they think it means no mention of sex anywhere ever. It’s not a respectful question from someone who didn’t know, it’s a rant to bow to the whims of someone who knows why but doesn’t like it.Kingsif (talk)12:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief guys. Calm down and don'tWP:BITE the new people. Many people who don't edit wikipedia or only encounter the encyclopedia casually through their own limited search interests may not be aware of the darker corners of the encyclopedia. We shouldn't shame people for their ignorance, or be rude when people are culture shocked. We can inform people kindly and respectfully, and then move on without the drama.4meter4 (talk)23:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the hooks in question here, but I do think we need to avoid leaning too heavily into the NSFW stuff on the main page. The C of E incidents from a few years ago are an example of what can go wrong. I've definitely observed a trend that a lot of the DYK editor base is of the view that titillating = interesting, and while that stuff is going to inherently generate clicks, it's not necessarily encyclopedic. My primary concern to be honest is more with racy images on the main page than a reasonably-worded hook. But we need to keep in mind that there's people who may bring up the Main Page at work or at school, and there's been stuff on the main page in the last year that would have resulted in me getting a trip to the HR office if I had brought the Main Page up at work. Likewise, we want to avoid a situation where the Main Page lands a kid in in-school-suspension for bringing up nudity on a classroom computer without expecting it. If someone wants to click on the link, that's fine, but given that the general expectation is tonot find dirty pictures on the home page of Wikipedia, I think there's strong reasons to really think about what DYK, POTD, and TFA run as images.Hog FarmTalk00:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like at the least for hook sets to try and have an introductory-style hook in the first slot, if possible. I think the William and Mary set does that with the first hook, noting 333rd in another line might be redundant. I can see a stronger case for sets without introductory hooks. At some point for example we must run out of generic Christmas hooks.CMD (talk)14:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking of suggesting this atWP:VPIL. There have been a few occasions when I could clearly tell a DYK set at the main page had a theme but couldn't figure it out to save my life.Barbalalaika 🐌21:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it would be very easy to end such sets with something like ".... that the above facts are presented in honor of the 333rd anniversary of the college of Williamand Mary?" Heck, I've suggested multiple times before that normal sets should end with "... that the above facts are taken from Wikipedia's newest content?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)17:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Copying my comment here: I am a bit concerned about theCollege of William & Mary themed set of today. While I absolutely love themed sets in concepts and would love to see more of them, centering one around an extant organization can easily seem promotional, and I am worried that some readers will come to think we are running an ad or some kind of paid product placement.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)14:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that the set was intended to be promotional, nor appear as such, I am admittedly confused as to why there was pushback against the Pokémon set idea for being "promotional" (and to be fair, I can see where they were coming from), but this particular set did not have the same kind of pushback on similar grounds.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed that people here support an obviously promotional set about a corporate-owned product, but are against that of a university. We definitely live in interesting times.Viriditas (talk)01:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I do not support a Pokémon themed set. My comment was simply that a Pokémon themed set would have a wider appeal than a themed set about a small college on the east coast, which is objectively true. Personally, I dislike themed sets in general. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future.wound theology◈14:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s an appeal to insignificance and an oversimplification. It is not objectively true that the importance of the topic relies on the location or size of the student body, nor does its location or enrollment size reflect or determine its historical or institutional importance. The US Supreme Court only has nine people. According to your criterion, it isn’t important. Size does not determine importance.Viriditas (talk)18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say anything about importance. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth and re-read what I said. It is a simple fact that more readers would care about a Pokémon themed set than one about a small college. Again, the matter of the fact is that I support neither set, so again, stop that.wound theology◈03:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this set is more promotional than the Pokémon one. Pokémon is much more a household name than William and Mary, and it'll be in the news anyway for the anniversary, so DYK isn't really going to do much there, whereas the amount of time W&M is on my mind had skyrocketed thanks to DYK.JustARandomSquid (talk)19:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a public university, so I don't think it's promotional as we're not advertising a specific product or thing - if we ran hooks on a for-profit corporation, then yes.HurricaneZetaC15:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: My issue with the set was moreso "I'm not a fan of how our novel special occasion hook sets tend to largely be about the US or the West"; I'd be more open to them if moving forward we do more non-US sets. I've already suggested a Pokémon set for February 27 (which hasn't gained much support unfortunately), and I know Pbritti is working on a Philippines set for June 12 per my suggestion.
I'm more interested if general readers enjoyed the set or found it weird. I remember how, in the past, we ran a special occasion set about an obscure Christian feast (I forgot which one), and the reception to it was negative enough that it actually discouraged us from making special sets outside of the usual scheduled ones like Christmas/Halloween/Women's Day for a while. IIRC, it was actually the set that inspired our current rules regarding sets.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with feasts (Christian or otherwise) to highlight lesser-known cultural celebrations, but I draw the line at organizations, companies, or anything else that readers might plausibly interpret as an advertisement.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the nominations, I actually suggested that the name of the university not be mentioned, but it was the nominator's wish to include it, so I didn't push back on it further. In hindsight, maybe if most of the hooks did not mention the university by name, the set would have avoided more criticism.
The main page regularly devotes substantial space to topics of political, social, and commercial interest. To encyclopedically cover the world is to directly engage with it. I have a hard time seeing this as promotional, especially as any more promotional than if the same nine hooks had been dispersed over the course of the next two-ish months (which is the approximate DYK cycle length at the moment). I remember hearing through the grapevine that people were a bit upset that my work onAquilegia made it to DYK every couple weeks early last year. You can't please everyone. As previously stated and discussed on my talk page, I'm hoping to assist with a proposed Filipino set. If it's a lack of diversity that people are concerned about, I'd encourage them to join that set or find another topic area suffering from systematic bias and submit a nom. I'd be happy to help them. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)15:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do have two questionsPbritti: is there any particular reason why, of all of the many US universities out there, it is this you decided to propose a special set for and not the others? Do you have a personal connection or attachment to this school, or is it just because of the anniversary and the choice is just a coincidence? It's more because, admittedly, W&M is a rather random choice for a special occasion set, when there are plenty of other American universities that are arguably more deserving. And secondly, in the wake of the reception to the set, are you planning to propose future "novel" sets, or not anymore?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without divulging too much about my present employer, I also a researcher unaffiliated with W&M (I have never been paid by W&M or any institution contracted by the college). I studied early colonial history over several classes towards my undergrad history major, most of which utilized the nearbyColonial Williamsburg as a resource. Post-undergrad, I did side work as a researcher while teaching and doing grad school (at theUniversity of Denver, which introduced me tothe topic of my first GA). I have since been very lucky to earn enough to now own a large library on Virginian history, with a heavy focus on Colonial Virginia's religious and architectural heritage. Since it comes up in my work life and I have a personal familiarity with it (and, thus, a greater knowledge of where to find information), I've volunteered time to transfer some of the wealth of material hidden in books and academic journals to freely accessible articles here on Wikipedia. I quite resent the modern W&M's management of students, faculty, and research. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)15:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think necessarily theidea for the set is wrong. If, for example, someone wanted to do a special occasion set for Harvard, where all the articles have a connection to Harvard, I wouldn't see that as promotional. It would be an issue, however, if all or most of the hooks mentioned Harvard by name, or are otherwise clearly connected to it. So the concerns about the set being seen as promotional (despite it not being the intention) is really more about how the hooks are presented and the subjects involved, rather than simply the idea of an entire set focused on a single organization.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd disagree that naming the institution is an issue, as all of these books would have featured "William & Mary" in them somewhere had I nominated them individually because the subjects are all primarily notable as a result of events or interactions with the college. ~Pbritti (talk)16:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Mentioning W&M in these hooks are relevant for the theme and the hook itself, and as the involvement of the college adds to the interesting aspects.GGOTCC21:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time seeing this as promotional, especially as any more promotional than if the same nine hooks had been dispersed over the course of the next two-ish monthsFrom the perspective of a reader, it absolutely does: it's the difference between balanced content (where editors might not notice repetitions, or chalk it up to a dedicated contributor), and a direct focus on a single organization. The problem isn't the number of hooks about W&M in itself, but how they are presented together all at once, which tells the reader thatsomething is going on – and, for someone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, one of the most obvious explanations is a partnership or product placement.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that I actively avoided articles that are pertinent to W&M as a current institution. This was extremely intentional, asthat would be promotional. The only article primarily about something still relevant to the college was that on theWilliam & Mary Quarterly, a reasonably well-regarded academic journal in its niche. If someday theCollege of William & Mary runs as the TFA, it wouldn't be promotional (heck, we often time such things for anniversaries). That a subject area has an editor who is willing to invest time in it and rapidly expand/create a number of articles is often mistaken for being promotional, when it's in fact exactly how this project was meant to work. ~Pbritti (talk)15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a setis promotional is kind of a non-issue; I don't think Pbritti was paid to do the set or wanted to promote W&M in any way. But whether itreads as promotional is another question, and that is largely subjective.wound theology◈15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the latter is my main worry. Also, I'm not sure how it beinga reasonably well-regarded academic journal in its niche is relevant to whether the set is/reads as promotional or not.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)16:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think more context was provided than is usually done via the photo hook. As I said when Pbritti proposed this set, in general I’m going to be supportive if a member of the DYK community has anoccasional idea for a custom set.Dclemens1971 (talk)14:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the Pokémon set/partial set, I think one way to avoid accusations of it being promotional would be to avoid mentioning "Pokémon" by name in the hooks, or including hooks/articles that do not directly mention the series or only have an indirect connection (for example,Cukie Gherkin has proposed running a non-Pokémon game by series developerGame Freak in the set).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that these special "custom" sets (i.e. those that are not about the usual scheduled sets like AFD, Christmas, Halloween, IWD, etc.) tend to be controversial at best, I'm starting to wonder if we need to have a proper discussion regarding guidelines for them, perhaps even an RfC. I'm assuming that important national holidays (for example, our past Canada Day set, or the Papua New Guinea set and the proposed Philippines set) will generally be uncontroversial. However, from experiences, it has been less so for "special" cases like this W&M case, or more notoriously the English royals set we ran in the wake of Queen Elizabeth's death.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is approximately as Dclemens1971 put it. I can't imagine ever single-handedly putting up the noms for a themed set and I would discourage the community from ever accepting such a set repeatedly from the same editor. However, once-in-a-blue-moon themed sets seem like a fun bit of variety that encourage improvements to certain subject areas the same way that WikiProject month-long drives can. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I think what we should be doing is we should first have !votes on whether or not approve such set requests,then only work on them once there is consensus to run them. This is in contrast to the usual practice where the proposer ends up working on the articles in advance already and people just go along with it. That may seem more bureaucratic, but it would at least ensure that such sets have broad support, and any objections or concerns are already taken into account in advance. Take, for example, last month's MLK Day set where the vote on running it cameafter work already started. While we cannot please everyone, ideally we'd at least want to minimize objections. WT:DYK is a bit of an echo chamber, and it's not unusual for us to propose ideas, hooks, or sets that were seemingly uncontroversial here, but were objected to once they actually ran.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I'm ok with themed sets, but basing an entire collection around a single school is not a good idea. It does come across as a violation ofWP:NOTPROMO/WP:DYKNOT (third bullet point). We're here now, so we should let it be, but in future we should ban any sets centered around a single organization/institution, for profit or non-profit.WP:DYKSO should probably add a sentence to this effect. Best.4meter4 (talk)15:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the response to this set, I'm wondering if, instead of a full Pokémon set for February 27, a partial set would be a reasonable compromise (maybe 3-4 hooks at most). There would still be multiple hooks, but they wouldn't dominate the set, and it would be less likely to be seen as promotional, especially if my suggestion about avoiding direct name-drops to the series or making the article subjects more indirect help.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I am going to say no to a Pokemon half set even. It's a product, andWP:DYKNOT (third bullet point) is something we can't/shouldn't ignore. Those will need to be split into separate queues. That set should never have been approved.4meter4 (talk)15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That set has yet to be approved; in fact, it was objected to on promotional grounds (the current objection to this set). Perhaps at most two hooks can run then, since those can be treated as regular special occasion hooks rather than a partial set.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the example of "product launches" is meant to avoid being DYKs meant to promote a product launch. I don't think having a day set aside to focus on a brand necessarily entails promotion thereof as much as celebration. That said, I'm not going to lose sleep if consensus opposes a Pokémon DYK day.Cukie Gherkin (talk)22:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a harder interpretation of those two policies, then a ban on DYK hooks about politicians or professionals may be in order. Since DYK bans negative hooks about living people, any hook about a current politician is inherently promotional as it puts a positive/unique aspect of the person in front of thousands of readers. This promotion would then benefit a politician's PR, or the perception of an artist, or the popularity of an author.GGOTCC21:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I'm fine with themed sets, I just think they come off as promotional when they are about aspecific entity. Ones for holidays, like April Fool's, don't show that aspect as there's nothing to be promotional about.EF521:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we feature articles on music artists and their albums at TFA, is that promo? Of course not. Is it good faith to assume that an editor was bought off after they went through the proper channels of getting consensus, writing and nominating the articles, and fulfilling the other necessary steps? Of course not. ~Pbritti (talk)21:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I get that you're upset that the reaction to your special day wasn't as unanimously joyful as you had anticipated. But accusing people of bad faith for raising their concerns aboutthe appearance of having a DYK full of one university is really unhelpful. And assuming a throwaway commentabout Wikipedia was an attackon you is just silly. You could have had a William and Mary hook in DYK every day for a week and I doubt there would have been any hoo-hah. But a whole DYK for one subject is too much. It is so much out of the ordinary that it looks off.DuncanHill (talk)22:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure if spreading out the W&M hooks over multiple days would be well-received either. We've already received complaints about running too manyJilly Cooper hooks, and those were not even run in a single set. It got to the point that, now, any hooks about her books avoid mentioning her by name.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is if assumed by a non-Wikipedia reading the main page — they don't know anything about our background process. Maybe they think the WMF was bought off to run the hooks. Most people probably don't even know on what basis the articles are chosen to run in DYK and probably wonder why they've never seen any well-known fun facts on bigger topics there.JustARandomSquid (talk)21:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of William & Mary in my life, and probably millions of Wikipedia readers haven't either, especially if they are not American. A themed set based on a single institution should never exist. It is not comparable to themed sets about Christmas and other comemorative days. This should've never been a themed set.Skyshiftertalk21:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I really hope you learned something about the second oldest college in the US, one that produced dozens of important figures in US culture and politics and has probably had an outsized impact on your life without you even knowing it. The reception from readers seems to be pretty good from what's searchable online and nobody seems to think that this is "promotional" except for those present here. I'd far rather a few editors sling veiled accusations (not you, Skyshifter, your critique is entirely reasonable, even if I disagree) and have evidence of an educated readership than not have done the work that was necessary for this set. I will always consider it a success. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)22:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
U.S., U.S., U.S... that might actually be the biggest problem with this set. AFAIK the DYK people arranging the sets try to avoid American bias and try to include hooks from other countries in the queues/sets. But here we are with a 100% American set about a single institution. Sure, it may be important in U.S. history, it may be one of the oldest in the U.S., and all that. But I think we are all tired of American bias here (at least I'm sure the non-Americans, like me, are). Themed sets like April Fools or even Christmas can have cultural diversity with hooks from all around the world. "Reception from readers" — Correct me if I'm wrong but they are probably all (or vast majority) Americans, I'd like to see the reception from other countries. Back when I edited Portuguese Wikipedia, I am 100% sure if we did some all-Brazilian themedanything, Portugal editors would be pissed. DYK is here (or at least, I see it that way) to show our readers all Wikipedia can offer, displaying all the different topics and cultures our articles cover. This set is not that.Skyshiftertalk22:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're preaching to the choir. I've already signed on to assist with a Filipino set and expressed willingness to assist with any other sets that I could reasonably be helpful for. We must be the change we want to see, keep nominating DYKs from under-appreciated subject areas! ~Pbritti (talk)22:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Skyshifter, I just spend the last several days trying to put together a diverse international DYK set and it was extremely difficult. There are few women represented in any hooks other than the US and Commonwealth countries, for example. I was amazingly lucky to find a single woman candidate from Japan for my set. While it is certainly valid to make accusations of US bias, when it comes down to it, the people who levy these accusations are rarely contributing hooks to alleviate this bias.Viriditas (talk)22:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commonwealth is already better than U.S., not gonna lie. This is not an accusation, but rather a fact. And as a Brazilian, I have contributed several Brazilian hooks in the past, you can check. It is true though that it has been a while since I have nominated a hook. And I won't lie that I contribute to the bias when I sometimes work on American articles rather than those related to my own country. But that's how the world is. Most of the media I consume is American because that's how the world turned out to be. So I understand that it is difficult. But in this case we're talking about a single institution of that country, not even "different topics on the same country" at least.Skyshiftertalk23:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have several ideas on how to improve the diversity of sets if you are interested. Maybe we could talk about this later on one of our talk pages.Viriditas (talk)23:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on the new responses, I have a few thoughts.
First, I tuned out of the previous discussion after a while, so I am not sure if Pbritti being a W&M alumnus was brought up before. If it wasn't, it makes me wonder if the discussion would have turned out differently had that been mentioned; obviously it would not be a COI, people are always free to contribute about the school they graduated from, but it would have added more context to the request.
Second, Pbritti said he considers the set running a success. Considering the multiple complaints raised here, and it has now led to similar sets being discouraged going forward, I'm not sure if I would agree with that sentiment, unless this could be considered somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.
Thirdly, the fallout from this is making me reiterate the prior suggestion: any novel sets require consensus or approval before being worked on. I think part of the reason why the W&C set was approved was because Pbritti already pledged to work on such articles in advance, so editors went along with it rather than saying no. Novel sets like this already have a controversial past like with the St. James and English royals set. AJ29's addition works, since it doesn't ban novel sets outright, but moving forward it would at least be good to know they won't be objected to, or any objections are taken into account.
Finally, given the reception to the set has not been as positive as anticipated, it would be good to hear from other editors who supported running the set in the prior discussion and them giving input on what happened here.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have been on my phone today so less able to dive in here, but I'm back at my laptop, so let's review the fairly recent discussion that led to this set.Pbritti kicked things off with a request for a set a month ago. Looking back overthe discussion that ensued, Naruto was skeptical,Darth Stabro,Guerillero and I were supportive andChipmunkdavis asked a question but didn't comment further. Viriditas, Launchballer,Rjjiii andJeromi Mikhael commented only in the section breaking off the discussion about a Philippines-related set for June. Counting those discussing Pbritti's proposal specifically, I see four editors in favor of the idea, one skeptical/opposed and one who didn't comment on the merits. That counts as a rough consensus in a conversation that lasted a week. (Pinging only those who haven't commented yet in today's discussion.)
I have no reason to change my perspective on why I was supportive: Wikipedia in general, and DYK in particular, is powered by enthusiasm. If someone who, like Pbritti, is a regular, helpful and creative contributor to this corner of Wikipedia brings an idea for a set that taps into their enthusiasm,I'm going to support it. I'm also on record above appreciating the Jilly Cooper hooks, even though her writing's not really my cup of tea, because I learn something from them and because I enjoy seeing Lajmmoore's enthusiasm for the subject.) As long as the hooks areinteresting and otherwise compliant with the guidelines, I think we can all benefit from fostering the continued enthusiasm of DYK participants within the framework of the existing guidelines. Stanching enthusiasm is a way to discourage our volunteers over time
I wouldn't support if Pbritti's requests were frequent, but they aren't. I've never seen him make a special occasion set request before, and this truly appears to be a one-off and Pbritti acknowledged in his opening request that this is a big ask. I wouldn't support this kind of hook if it weren't made by someone who's a regular contributor to DYK (in part because it's harder to evaluate if the intent would be promotional or if the execution would be of sufficient quality). Pbritti's connection to W&M is disclosed on his userpage and I suspect is known to anyone who regularly interacts with him, and knowing his track record of positive DYK participation, I had no doubt about the propriety of his request.
Some editors often ask why DYK runs so many hooks about molly fish or US modernist architecture or Indonesian diplomats or Jilly Cooper books or Genshin Impact characters. The reason is simple: that's what individual editors who volunteer at DYK are enthusiastic about. If editors don't like the mix of hooks we run, the answer isn't to shut down other people's enthusiasms; it's to contribute their own enthusiasms to this corner of the project. And that gets to my final point. I see many people in the thread above with criticism of the set itself and the process that led to it. It's clear there was a rough (if lightly attended) consensus to run this set. I invite people with concerns about DYK processes but who aren't regulars here to watchlist and join in the conversations on this page in the future.Dclemens1971 (talk)03:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One issue that manifested itself with happened is that WT:DYK can sometimes act like an echo chamber. When there are proposals, only those who support end up commenting, while those who are indifferent or oppose are either unwilling to speak out, or are uninterested in doing so. Meanwhile, when concerns do happen, it's either from editors who were not able to comment last time, or more commonly, editors from outside DYK. Because DYK decisions are often agreed upon by fellow DYK editors and less often by those outside the community, when we do run stuff, we run into friction with outsiders. It's why most of the complaints about Jilly Cooper hooks, radio hooks, and now the W&C set came not from DYK regulars but rather outsiders.
I think one thing we can learn from this experience is that there are times we may also need to take into account outsiders' opinions. We don't always have to agree with them or even implement them, but an outsider's feedback can work as a check against what we take for granted, and also give additional scrutiny. It's part of the reason whyWP:ERRORS exists: DYK, ITN, OTD, etc. editors may have missed something, and it's up to outsiders to bring it up.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)03:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get it -- if there is an actual error, or a violation of a P&G, an outside critique makes sense. Neither applied here. So if people who don't participate in DYK want to critique our processes, they should come participate here first and get to know this corner of the project.Dclemens1971 (talk)03:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you don't want any outsiders telling you what they think. How long should they participate before being allowed to offer an opinion?DuncanHill (talk)03:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A horizontal process that relies on the power exerted solely from the participants without recourse to a top-down, higher authority is based on what everyone participating thinks.Viriditas (talk)03:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill, thanks for the least charitable interpretation of what I said. Personally, I don't make it my business to go to other parts of Wikipedia and tell them what they're doing wrong. I trust that they have processes for a reason. If I'm curious, I ask questions. I observe how things work. I avoid "jokingly"accusing other editors of being paid off by another entity. Then, once I have a decent level of familiarity, I might suggest improvements to a process.
At DYK,outsiders (your word, not mine) are absolutely welcome here, anytime. I was one myself about nine months ago. It is admittedly an odd area of the project with lots of unwritten conventions, and it took me a while to understand how things work. I don't think there's any set timeline for a newbie to begin offering opinions, but one should have some grasp of how (and why) things operate around here, just as they should with new page review, AfC, AIV, SPI, EotW, ITN, edit filters, various Wikiprojects, or just about any other area of the project. In that spirit, please consider this my invitation to nominate an article or two, review a few nominations, promote a hook to a prep area, and get a sense for things.Dclemens1971 (talk)03:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was sent here from ERRORS. Had I known what it was like, I wouldn't have bothered coming. Anyway, I didn't come here to critique your processes, and I don't believe I've said anything about them. It was the result I was unhappy with. But I just read the front page, so I suppose I don't count.DuncanHill (talk)04:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you did offer a critique (although suggesting that there was DYK payola is an implicit critique). Youdid choose to misinterpret my remarks in your reply, which is why I felt it necessary to clarify the point.Dclemens1971 (talk)04:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"if there is an actual error, or a violation of a P&G, an outside critique makes sense. Neither applied here. So if people who don't participate in DYK want to critique our processes, they should come participate here first and get to know this corner of the project" You're saying that outsiders aren't welcome to criticise without prior participation That's not choosing to misinterpret you, that's exactly what you said.DuncanHill (talk)04:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think this conversation is getting a bit off track - friendly reminder to everybody that sarcasm and jokes are hard to get across in a text based platform. Most small communities get a bit insular and echo chambery, but there's only one solution to that AFAICT- so, please, @DuncanHill, do watchlist WT:DYK and, if you'd like, theDYK queues! If you see an issue with a hook, or set of hooks, bringing it up on this page is the best way to gets eyes on it. Nobody's a mind reader, and your input is valuable.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸04:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the word choice belowdoes have some delicious irony (sorry, @Darth Stabro, but that's objectively the funniest verb you could have chosen!) -- but the solution is the same: get involved, and be the change you wish to see in the DYK world. You typically get better reception the earlier you raise the issue (see:before hook hits queues/preps).GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸04:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to DYK, this is one of the most fractious groups of editors I’ve seen. Mostly polite, but we have lots of disagreements, both here at WT:DYK and in individual nom pages.Dclemens1971 (talk)04:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will propose the first tentative requirement: by default, all themed sets should be collaborative, and should not be the work of a single contributor.Viriditas (talk)03:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about a formal requirement, (I think the Papua New Guinea Set was mostly the work of CMD?) but I think that's a good idea - more editors typically means more diversity in hook and article topics and styles, indicates that the topic is of broad enough interest to appeal to a wider audience, and, worst come to worst, if somebody doesn't like the fact that there is a themed set, it's not just one editor getting pushback.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸04:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the PNG set was not meant to be mostly the work of CMD. I was experimenting with creating a set to encourage other edits in the topic, which was not as successful as I hoped.CMD (talk)06:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be overly prescriptive and may limit our ability to run sets on underrepresented subject matter where there may not be a critical mass of interested/knowledgeable editors to make the set collaborative. (Case in point, the PNG set, which was great.) Moreover, there's a lot of collaboration that happens through the review/promote/queue process so there are still plenty of eyes. If we need to get more eyes on aproposal for a custom themed set, we could suggest that any themed set outside of some standard menu (Halloween, Christmas, what else runs every year?) get approval via consensus from a discussion with at least 10 (or insert other number here) editors participating in the discussion. This may address a concern in my comment above that Pbritti's W&M set, while receiving a consensus to run, had a lightly attended discussion.Dclemens1971 (talk)04:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it is a good idea on practice, on paper it might prove difficult since not everyone has the interest or drive to work on a specific topic. However, there is one potential outcome from this, though whether it is an upside or a downside depends on perspective: it would encourage broader topics as opposed to more narrow ones. So for example, instead of a William & Mary set, we would instead have a set on American education in general. I imagine though that such a set might still get pushback, especially since it's America-focused, but it would at least address that specific concern.
Thinking about it, one thing I have noticed, which was also echoed above by Skyshifter, is that there tends to be more pushback on these kinds of sets if the topic in question is American or Western. I imagine if we will have guidelines regarding novel special occasion sets moving forward, the rules can be loosened for non-American or Western topics, although exactly how would remain the topic of further discussion.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While a few editors have expressed concerns, the bases of these concerns are not identical and can be addressed individually. We have some legitimate arguments, like the position above that says the set shouldn't be unilateral. I don't see this as an issue, though, as no one was prevented from assisting with this (or any) set and DYK is an inherently collaborative process requiring at least two steps of third-party engagement. Other arguments are concerned about perception but don't really point to anything but their own subjective perception as evidence. We, as editors, as hyper attuned to potential concerns; we shouldn't mistake that useful instinct for evidence of a genuine issue. The third category boils down to the personal mud-slinging, largely emanating from forums likethis and the like who do not intend to contribute meaningfully, but instead undermine the legitimate by behaving imprudently. As I said before, I would not propose another set again: I wanted this as the one-and-done thing where I offered an extended period of maximum effort to address a serious coverage gap on the project that could be remedied with assets I had to hand. And I would encourage other editors to not be dissuaded by the comments above. A themed hook every couple months is probably good for Wikipedia, and no meaningful evidence to the contrary has been raised here.(Repeatedly edit-conflicted, so sorry if I messed up someone's formatting) ~Pbritti (talk)04:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As to the issue of systematic bias, we have to have an idea of what a realistic ideal end-state is. English Wikipedia is, unsurprisingly, largely male American English speakers writing on topics they are capable of writing on. As such, we will inevitably have more hooks from subjects that reflect this bias than don't. How to address this is not to discourage the beneficial content work in those subject areas, but to encourage other content work. DYK could host public drives for topics that receive inadequate coverage. It could reward new editors working on novel topic areas with special barnstars. Heck, just send a bit of wikilove any time you see someone nominate something you wouldn't have ever heard of otherwise. By imposing limits, we're going the wrong way. We need to open more doors. ~Pbritti (talk)04:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How should DYK deal with special occasion sets moving forward?
It's probably time that we have a formal discussion (if not an RfC) on how to deal with special occasion sets moving forward. AirshipJungleman29's change works, but that only addresses sets that could be possibly perceived as promotional, but not the concept as a whole. As stated before, special occasion sets have had a checkered history on DYK, with the Santiago de Compostela and English royals sets being two notable examples. The above discussion has given some ideas, and perhaps we can discuss them in more detail, or suggest new ones. Some of the suggestions above include:
Discouraging hook sets that are solely about an organization, group, or individual.
Requiring special occasion sets to be worked on by multiple editors.
Special occasion sets must first be approved before work can start.
Requiring a quorum (for example, at least 10 participants) before approving a special occasion set.
Each of these ideas have merit, although they also have their weaknesses (for example, 10+ participants might be too high of a bar, especially for more niche or underrepresented topics).We also probably need to codify the usual scheduled special occasion sets in the guidelines so that there is no need to start a new discussion approving them each time. Meaning we should mention Christmas, Halloween, and International Women's Day; we could even add new ones to that list, although via discussion, of course.This is not intended to be an RfC, but rather for us to brainstorm about our next steps. Special occasion sets have long been a source of controversy, so if there's a time for us to discuss them and their future, that time is now.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of a quorum of some sort for approval. Not sure of the number I'd place it at though.
I suggested at least 10 participants in a given discussion, with consensus found from among those participating (ie you don’t necessarily need 10 supports).Dclemens1971 (talk)05:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The third proposal is already part of the process (whether implicitly or explicitly), but having it more clearly codified can't hurt. I like the fourth proposal, if only so that those who might ask "who decided this?" can be shown a clear answer for both the sake of ending that often tendentious line of questioning and forcing accountability when there's a legitimate reason for concern. I'd encourage lowering the threshold from 10 to 7 for the quorum; DYK team members seem to have fluctuating availability and any group of seven people strongly supporting something on such a public page should be able to form a consensus if there is no opposition. The first proposal is overly broad; we should not have full sets on a single person or corporate interests, but "organizations" or "groups" may accidentally preclude topics almost all editors would be fine with, like the Olympics or a major cultural grouping. I would leave it at banning sets on "people and corporate interests" and allow individual discussions to sort out the rest. Since any set is inevitably the product of multiple people, I would hate to tell someone who wrote a set on Guinea-Bissau that they have to find someone else willing to write an article in that subject area. Again, individual consensuses can impose that kind of restriction on a set should a reasonable concern be raised. ~Pbritti (talk)05:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that there is anyway to enforce "no work can begin". Functionally, the only thing that encourages is editors to draft off-wiki and then add an article all in one go once it has been approved. If it meant as in "no hooks can be submitted prior to being approved", then I just don't know if that has benefit. A decent number of the MLK Day hooks were submitted by editors with no involvement in its proposal weeks before it occurred.1brianm7 (talk)05:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree on that. I think we could prohibit the assemblage of hooks into preps/queues but anything more would downright counterproductive. We want people writing articles, and it doesn't take a lot to dissuade someone (especially new editors) to give up on their hard work if they're told that they can't pass go until a bureaucratic process separate from article creation/expansion is complete. ~Pbritti (talk)05:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar to that was raised about the Pokémon set, with a link to the discussion being posted atWikipedia:Village pump (policy). It's a bit interesting to me that the consensus for running it there was arguably stronger than the one here, and that this discussion here appears to have a strong consensus against running it.1brianm7 (talk)06:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a spicy hot take — no special occasion sets at all, barring the standard Christmas, April Fools and Halloween. Wikipedia is one of the world's largest websites, and as such is seen as sort of immutable and projects the feeling that it shouldn't be influenced by anything but the largest, most culturally influential dates. Other large websites might give their logo a Santa hat for Christmas, but probably wouldn't change it for Papua New Guinea Independence Day, even if it is the 50th one. I'm finding it difficult to precisely word this feeling, but it seems slightly unprofessional for Wikipedia to bend over backwards to honour the 333rd anniversary of some American college (even if it is fairly important). Feel free to rip my opinion to shreds.JustARandomSquid (talk)14:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Special sets for Christmas and Halloween but not for Papuan independence doesn't sound veryWP:CSB. Aren't we supposed to be working towards less Western bias? Tangential: the Papuan set was memorable. I remember I was sitting in atempo in the morning when I saw it on the main page. I very rarely remember small stuff like this. Special sets are cool and fine, the one currently under discussion was also fine. regards,TryKid[dubious –discuss]16:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what consensus draws the line regarding what is and isn't appropriate for sets, I think that a set of similar scope and contributions to that of the Papuan set should be permitted. It was my favorite set that I didn't contribute towards and it's awesome to see that other editors remember it so fondly months on. CMD deserves every laud they can receive for that set. ~Pbritti (talk)16:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - CMD, you did an awesome job on that. (And even if the reception to the W&M set didn't turn out perfectly @Pbritti, you should also feel proud of all the work you put in to improve the encyclopedia as part of it! Better than anything I've done this month, that's for certain)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, my opinion is a bit extreme, so I'm not really going to be defending it, but Christmas and Halloween are, whether you like it or not, international holidays that are widely celebrated, whereas Papua New Guinea Independence Day isn't.JustARandomSquid (talk)17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprised no one has proposed doing a regular scheduled set for Eid Al-Fitr and/or Eid Al-Adha yet. If we can have a regular scheduled set on perhaps the most famous Christian holiday of all, there's no reason why we can't do something similar for the world's second-largest religion.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that proposal was actually a response to this discussion. Looking back on this, I'm wondering if one reason why there was so much pushback against the set was not necessarily because it is about a university, but moreso which university specifically. If it was instead about, for example, Harvard or Oxford, would the criticism and concerns be the same?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There might have been a bit less pushback, since a set about a more well-known university would naturally appear more "natural", but I would still be uncomfortable with it.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)10:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a set forInternational Women's Day, and a couple years ago, there was a hook set for museums forInternational Museum Day that I think DYK liked. I also enjoyed the Summer Olympics sets in 2024, though that was a lot of work. I think limiting special occasion sets to the three major holidays would be a detriment to this project by not allowing these types of sets to be created. I like the idea of limiting the sets that would have hooks from multiple geographic regions (no special hooks for specific countries) and only to signify a specific holiday or event (Christmas, Ramadan, Olympics, etc.)Z1720 (talk)16:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I really like that last idea! The Olympics might be borderline (as it's an organization rather than just a cultural event), but for cultural holidays or events celebrated throughout the world, I could absolutely see sets working well (like a Ramadan-themed set onEid al-Fitr). I'm not opposed to sets for individual countries (like the PNG one) if we take care of avoiding Western bias there, although these would probably be one-offs instead of getting repeated every year.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)16:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics is a major commercial event -- and one with a checkered past. From aggressive trademark enforcement all the way to stuff like theUSA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal, the IOC's response to theDisappearance of Peng Shuai, the 2024 participation of Israel, the choice to hold the 2014 games in Sochi... the list goes on. It's just bias that we editors are okay with promoting it but not other commercial entities.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸18:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus was in favour of restricting Olympic-sets, I would not be too bothered. I oppose country-specific sets, even if its non-Western countries, as I'm think this will lead to a slippery slope of editors arguing for a Fourth of July set for USA (which would be problematic for Wikipedia, to say the least). A "country-specific" restriction would probably also prevent special event sets for those celebrated in one place likeGuy Fawkes Day orJuneteenth. However, if DYK wanted country-specific sets I would only be a little bothered and would propose aCanada Day set for July 1. In earlier comments, some editors suggested only allowing special occasion for Christmas/Hallowe'en/April Fools: I am opposed to this narrow restriction and think it should be more broad.Z1720 (talk)19:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... I'm not going to advocate banning Olympic themed sets - I dislike the organization, sure, but I can't deny that it incentivizes a lot of editors to write a lot of content about athletes from all over the world, which I think is more important. I just don't like the idea of allowing a carve out for them if we do go down the route of discouraging organization and event themed DYK sets/special occasions.
Related, I wouldn't want a Fourth of July set every year, or for it to be all guns, eagles, and jingoism -- but the recent MLK day set we did, whilst American, was, I think, pretty well received. I think there's ways to do it without being problematic. Getting a fewNational Heritage Fellowship winners up to DYK standards probably wouldn't even be noticed by the general public, something Civil Rights related, and obviously I think something or somebody related to theTreaty of Manila (1946) would be great, given the shared date. I'm sure other, smarter, people could find cool subjects to write about. But I suppose I'm digressing.
And much like you'd like to do a Canada set, I'd love to someday con y'all into letting me do something Alaska/arctic, anti-racism, or Indigenous peoples themed forElizabeth Peratrovich Day one year, which we have onFebruary 16.... Not sure if you'd think that too local/niche, @Z1720? I think I can scope it broad enough, but what's your opinion on more vague, open ended themes like that? Or anybody's elses opinion, too?GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Late response, sorry, and I'm certainly going more than a bit off topic - but it would genuinely be an honor to work with you on something like that! I'm assuming I'd have to start a discussion here a bit closer to the date, but how does an Indigenous peoples themed set (with our Artic hooks) on the August 9th date that @Z1720 floated sound? (Inviting @Viriditas, of course!)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸07:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more general indigenous peoples set would work, and that's something I've had a lifelong interest in, so I would be happy to contribute.Viriditas (talk)23:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My sense of this broader conversation is that there is still support for doing custom sets and that we are ok with custom sets done by one person if they are as good as the PNG set. Perhaps the only thing there’s consensus to change here is to adopt Airship’s amended guideline about sets not focusing on an organization? Proposers already need to seek consensus at DYKT. (My interest here, as expressed above, is in affirming, not quenching, the enthusiasms that powers DYK.)Dclemens1971 (talk)23:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We already did a Canada Day set a while back as a one-off, although I don't think it's a good idea to make it a regular thing. We do have the upcoming Semiquincentennial anniversary of July 4, 1776, so I wouldn't be too opposed to a one-off US-based Fourth of July set, but I would suspect that it would raise concerns over systemic bias, even if this time it is more understandable.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was glad to see that we were doing something out-of-the-box and trying a themed set on a (relatively speaking) niche topic. Promotionality concerns aside, I think the decision to try it was a good one, but I think we got some data that says we should probably not try something like this again. We can reach many more people by maintaining set variety. Here is the stats table for the set:
... thatChandler Court and Pollard Park, which were designed and occupied by William & Mary faculty, have been called "two ofWilliamsburg's most appealing twentieth-century neighborhoods"?
... that William & Mary's president was unable to get the college to fund theWilliam and Mary Quarterly, so he paid for it himself?
Notes
This is, I'm sorry to say, ashockingly poor performance for a DYK set. Just for reference – last month, the average non-image hook received 318.8 views per hour, and the lowest image hook received 289.8 views per hour. That means that not only did the image hook fall below every January and February (so far) image hook by a wide margin, every single one of these hooks would have placed in the bottom half of last month's hooks. In January, 9 hooks (3.3%) fell below 100 views per hour. This set hadfive, for a full 55%.
To be clear, I don't think this is because the hooks werebad. They're pretty solid, if not my favorite ever. But I think one takeaway from this set is that DYK has a variety rule for a good reason: our audience is not a faceless set of generally curious individuals with uniform preferences. Like every non-niche publication, our audience is segmented, and all nine hooks in this set apparently only appealed to something like a third of our readers at the expense of the other two-thirds. Variety helps us hit as many segments of the audience as possible. Similar hooks compete in the same markets and split readership. That's a good thing to keep in mind as we talk about suggestions for future sets and build preps in general.publeek (service •theleekycauldron • she/her)02:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s.: it is perfectly possible to create a set that has both theme and variety. The Transgender Day of Remembrance setdid quite well because it wasn't obsessively focused on transgender topicsper se – it did a great job of highlighting the diverse backgrounds, achievements, and pursuits of transgender people. compare & contrast this set.)publeek (service •theleekycauldron • she/her)02:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this set and the hooks that ran, I can now see where the "this set is promoting W&M" concern is coming from, even if it was not the intention. All of the hooks mention W&M by name, which I personally think is overkill. Even when I was proposing the Pokémon anniversary set, I was explicitly stating that the hooks should avoid mentioning Pokémon by name whenever possible, to at least make the set feel more natural and less upfront (since that set is not going to happen, that's water under the bridge, but this is food for thought). I'm wondering if the set would have been better received if the hooks (not the subjects) had more variety and did not mention the school by name. Seeing the school's name repeated across all nine hooks makes it seem repetitive and in your face.
To be honest, I'm going to be frank here: several hooks here are simply not interesting to a broad audience regardless of the connection to W&M. I personally would have not approved the Orlando Jones and Richard Lee Morton hooks as written. I also would have deleted the mention of W&M from the Five Speeches, Denver Mills, and Chandler Court and Pollard Park hooks (the others are specifically about W&M connections so deleting them would be harder, other than going with other hook facts instead). I actually raised this concern with the Denver Mills hook in the nomination and said the school should not be mentioned, but the nominator wanted it.
If we're going to do another special set on one topic, and to be honest I'm not sure if it will happen again after the reception to this one, it should definitely be of more variety and does not put necessarily put the topic front-and-center. It's not the same with the Papua New Guinea set since that was at least about an entire country, and not all of the hooks namedropped PNG.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those statistics are interesting. Thank you for collecting them. I wonder how much of the poor performance is due to every hook mentioning "William & Mary", possibly causing readers to gloss over them, (e.g., would... that the May Day orations helped to move Virginia's capital and establish Williamburg? have out-performed what we ran.) or is it a result of the topics being more similar than what we usually run (ignoring the fact that they all relate to W&M).1brianm7 (talk)02:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that it's a mix of the two. Two of the hooks (Orlando Jones and Richard Lee Morton) had objectively bad hook facts, and that would have been the case even if the school in question was something like Princeton or Yale. The promoted Denver Mills hook was also, frankly, not the more interesting hook (the railroad one was the better hook here, and even the nominator was open to it; courtesy ping toHurricaneZeta as the promoter). As for the other hooks, not mentioning the school would have helped, especially the speeches one, even if the actual hook fact was fine.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)03:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The proof of the hook is in the viewing, and it's clear that this set was too niche for the main page. I don't mind that we experimented with it, but the results don't suggest we try something this narrow again, even if suggested by an experienced DYK participant.Dclemens1971 (talk)03:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson there is "don't link unbolded articles". I'd be raging if someone added a link to a hook I'd submitted and that article got more than the one I'd submitted.--Launchballer12:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The unbolded link in myHelen Essary hook gottwice as many clicks as the boldlink (and I have no one to blame but myself for that one) but ever since I’ve been much more judicious in the use of supplemental links. As has been pointed out, people can get to the other topic by clicking the bold link.Dclemens1971 (talk)12:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the reason why DYK nominators want to add non-bold links is so that they also draw attention to the side article, effectively acting as a double-nom. Of course anything underMOS:OL (such as countries and things everyone knows) would not be linked. As an example formy first DYK nom in April 2024,cozy game (boldlink)got 15.4k views whileAnimal Crossing: New Horizons (non-boldlink)got 6935 even though ACNH was there first:"thatAnimal Crossing: New Horizons sparked a boom in the popularity ofcozy games"? So it does go to show that the first linked hook is not always the most popular. And readers not editing (or at least not involved with DYK) don't even see whether or not the links have bold formatting or not.JuniperChill (talk)21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
a set that has both theme and variety, on this matter, I have previously suggested that themed sets try to compensate for a decrease in one sort of variety by maximising others. The W&M set had five bios, slightly more than would be desirable, and three others are documents/speeches. That's a lot of topical overlap. I didn't mind the W&M set, but if there is a desire to find guidelines going forward, whether a set can go a long way towardsWP:DYKVAR may help filter what sets might be too specific.CMD (talk)12:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of topic variety was, sadly, partially the result of confusion on my part regarding how many hooks were required. I was under the impression that seven would be sufficient to get this set to run and was notified shortly before the run that I actually had to produce two more articles to get to nine. Unfortunately, biographies and documents are the easiest sorts of things for me to write articles on when crunched for time, so we gotOrlando Jones andCarlo Bellini (I was considering an article on something called the Frenchman's Map, which will get an article soon but would have probably performed even more dramatically poorly than anything here because it's really just an especially important map). From a message on my talk page, I get the impression that some users would consider lower viewer counts especially crushing on a personal level. I'm not really feeling that way—I got the chance to bring people's attention to a topic that is disproportionately important despite its (until recently) thinner coverage here on the project. Again, I'm still uncertain how "promotional" could be the takeaway here. I certainly don't anyone giving money to the college right now (besides, perhaps, the library) and I don't think I've convinced anyone to consider applying just so they can go to the same place thatOrlando Jones—uh, wait, no, theother one—learned to spell. As for evaluating it as an experiment, I like that perspective. It seems useful lessons were learned by the leading DYK team members who've commented and I know they'll provide stronger guidance regarding themed sets as a result. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)21:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Either it was too niche or it lacked variety. I don't want to shun out niche topics for special occasion hooks, and I thought this would be a wholesome set for an anniversary, but we should rethink our approach by maintaining variety. I would still support it but I think it should be made more clearer and be done like, some months in advance so there's time to plan without editors getting confused and doing what happened here in a time crunch.HurricaneZetaC21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So my question for everyone in this section that is opening on "too niche a topic". What objective measurable harm was done to Wp or to DYK? There was some concern about perception of paid editing that was presented by voices "in house" and possibly as a response to an external sites vitriol about DYK, yes, but that was all. There is nothing in DYK rule that say a minimum threshold number of "clicks" must be obtained for an article to be allowed in the DYK slots, and DYK:Interesting is a rule that originally was implemented to prevent overtly well duh obvious hooks (such as "...that the Sky isblue?), but is now being invoked as a gatekeeping device with no relation to that objective, and no consistent manner.--Kevmin§16:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have again avoided actually answering the question that I keep asking, specificallyWhat objective measurable harm was done to Wp or to DYK? If you are willing to continue to use INT as a gatekeeping device under the pretense of "protecting the project and main page" I will continue to ask that hard data be provided to justify that rational.--Kevmin§01:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the sentiment raised as I know it was not the intention, multiple editors criticized the set as giving the impression that we were promoting or advertising William & Mary College. Whether or not you agree with those criticisms is beside the point, the fact that they even happened showed that the set was not well-received. There were also criticisms that the hooks provided were boring, which only strengthened those complaints. Arguably, had the hooks been better written or presented, perhaps the set would not have been as controversial as it was. Contrast this with other recent special occasion sets such as the PNG and MLK sets, which had more variety and objectively better hooks.
Also Kevmin: given that you are vocal about your opposition to DYKINT and have stated it multiple times, why have you not started a discussion about it? It's easy to start an RfC about abolishing DYKINT, and given how unpopular and controversial that criterion is within some of the community, your proposal is likely to gain at least some support. There is no harm in starting a discussion unless you were never planning to start one to begin with.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which metrics do you have in mind? The main statistic we have access to (page views) clearly shows strong disapproval, and I'm not sure what other kinds of metrics you would like to see, given that reputational damage is notoriously hard to quantify with hard data.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)12:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro,CoryGlee, andM.Billoo2000: this may be a bit small-c conservative of me, but I'm a bit concerned about how this hook will be interpreted by readers. Even if reliably sourced, framing a mass shooting around the perpetrator's accusations against Ford/PACs/Clinton risks coming across as sensational and as giving undue prominence to his narrative - which, as the article notes, may have been impacted by delusions.Zzz plant (talk)20:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzz plant: Hi. Well, I agree with you (even as the nominator) about the "sensational" side. I nominated a lot more DYKs after this one and I wouldn't phrase it this way because it now sounds to me similar to the one some weeks ago about the "... shot Donald Trump" DYK... Did y'all see that discussion? That said, Atkins was foundsane and not delusional by the courts, but a psychological side cannot be discarded anyway. If the others pinged and whoever may join this discussion, I am willing to propose ALTs.CoryGlee22:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- I appreciate the flexibility/understanding and feel the erotomania angle is a better direction. My only remaining thought is that it may be worth clarifying a tad in the article whether Atkins himself directly claimed erotomania, or if it was more so an explanation offered by his attorney.Zzz plant (talk)22:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right!
Sources do not mention him ever speaking. This was (it seemed to be) a last-resort defense strategy. Can any English native rephrase it accordingly, please?CoryGlee23:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,HurricaneZeta, I'm not into that information. As far as it is about me, I don't have objections to changing the hook. And, while not knowing the information at hand, a recent DYK hook about a woman "shooting Donald Trump" (blatant clickbait) was changed in vivo... I mean, with the clickbait hook already on the portal.CoryGlee16:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We already have our regularly scheduled set for Christmas every year, and Christmas is ultimately a Christian holiday (even if it is celebrated by many non-Christians due to secularization). However, I don't think we've ever had a full set aboutEid al-Fitr, one of the two main holidays in Islam (along withEid al-Adha). In many Muslim countries, Eid al-Fitr is a far bigger celebration than Christmas. Even as a Roman Catholic myself, it feels weird that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet we have yet to do a set for it when we've done sets for other celebrations. I'm aware that such a set has been mooted in the past, but for whatever reason the idea has never gained traction.
This year, Eid al-Fitr will be around March 19 (the exact date depends on the country or location). Should we do an Islam-related set around that time? The above discussion regarding special sets says that we should be encouraging broader sets, not more narrowly minded ones, so I don't see it being difficult to have a whole set about Islam, Islam-related celebrations, or even facts from predominantly Muslim countries. If DYK could work together on a Martin Luther King Jr. Day set, or one editor can make an entire set about a single American school, I can't see why DYK can't run a set about the world's second-largest religion. If the reception to this is good, I can imagine us also doing another set for Eid al-Adha around May 27, and perhaps for either set or even both to become regular scheduled sets moving forward ala Christmas.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few ideas about potential articles... I could probably throw together something onPara Perintis Kemerdekaan for a more heavily Islamic themed hook, though unfortunately most of my Indonesian sources are no longer with me. (I also have plans to writePak Kasur [id], but even though he was from a Muslim-majority country his output was very non-denominational.) — Chris Woodrich (talk)02:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at all, but if you're going to propose sets, I would like to see you also contribute to the same set you propose. I think it's odd for people to propose a set, like a Philippines-related set, but not contribute to the same set. In other words, people who propose a set should have some skin in the game in helping to make the set happen. Simply proposing a random set isn't helpful, IMO.Viriditas (talk)02:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, while I'd love to participate myself, Islam and other related topics are outside my line of expertise, so it would be difficult for me to write such articles. However, perhaps if there are any Muslim anime personalities or something Islam-related that is also anime-related, perhaps I could chime in with a hook or two.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support one set in March or May, provided there is a sufficient number proposed. I do not support making it an annually scheduled set or scheduling a second Eid set this year until we can evaluate participation and response.Dclemens1971 (talk)03:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Idea is great. We need to find the relevant topics. Not necessarily about religious articles, but there can be some articles about sweet dishes as well which can be featured on Eid al-Fitr and about meat dishes on Eid al-Adha. Otherwise, we can make a set about the films and media which subject around Eids.M.Billoo05:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something like either the IWD set or the MLK set where we are on the lookout for new article creations about Islamic countries and Islam, and see if they can fit. We could also see if any of our open or approved nominations fit too. To make things easier, the set probably does not have to be entirely Eid-focused, the hooks just have to focus on Islam or an Islamic country (like how the MLK and IWD sets are broad in topic).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, albeit this is well outside of my comfort zone. Looking atWT:ISLAM#Article alerts, I see two DYK nominations, two GA candidates, and about half a dozen AfC submissions. I see also that@EasternShah: has also posted on the WikiProject's talk page. In short, filling a set shouldn't be tricky.--Launchballer10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the two DYK nominations do not seem appropriate.The first nomination is likely to be rejected on article quality and hook accuracy grounds, while thesecond nomination is about a Boko Haram leader and is probably not the best option to be featured. The two GA nominations have yet to be reviewed, so they are possibilities if they are reviewed soon.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled togetherPara Perintis Kemerdekaan and nominated it with a request to hold for Eid. If we get anything more specifically about Eid, great, but I think the link between the film and Islam is strong enough to make it a viable choice. (On an unrelated note, Kompas increased its database rates from 35k rupiah to 99k rupiah per article... this may be my last Indonesian article citing archival resources). — Chris Woodrich (talk)17:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While the intention is good, this would be an Eid al-Fitr set and not an Indonesia set, so ideally we'd want multiple Islam-related articles from across various countries and regions. If we ever decide to have an Indonesia set on August 17, that at least would be a possibility.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is my area of expertise. I'm not saying we'd have to run them all, but Indonesia is also the world's largest Muslim majority country, so two hooks would not be amiss. The only other topic that is coming to mind is about a fikh concept of spouses failing to do their duties, which would not be appropriate for Eid. — Chris Woodrich (talk)11:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is there anyway to reopen the DYK nomination for this page? The original one was failed and closed when the article was updated to 5x, and now the article is updated to GA status. Also, please refer tomy previous query few months back. Also, can I request the help of anyone else in pointing out a better hook? Thank you!M.Billoo08:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihil novi From what I see in my research: gameplay is structured, rule-bound interaction within a specific system, while play is a broader, often more open-ended activity. Gameplay refers specifically to the mechanics, actions, and strategies a player employs within a video game; play is broader/more generic.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A swap to ALT1 sounds good. I am a bit unfamiliar with the last couple steps of DYK hook promotion, as I don't do it. I always figured that promoters/queue-filler had fairly substantial discretion on swapping in ALTs; for the sake of circumstances like this, should I mark anything in my reviews differently? ~Pbritti (talk)14:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11,Ominae, andChipmunkdavis: This hook is phrased very weirdly, and it sounds like the "someone" inwhich someone asked for either asked for the book to be made or for a copy of the book to give (the correct interpretation isn't immediately noticeable). I can't think of any rephrasing ideas on my own.HurricaneZetaC15:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asked for a copy to give to Castro; the book was already written. The best I came up with at the nom was "... that Armenian politician Aram Piruzyan wrote a cookbook which someone requested to give to Fidel Castro?".BeanieFan11 (talk)16:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article only says that Piruzyan said someone suggested it. That is a weaker claim than the hook makes. It could be fixed by saying "... that Armenian politician Aram Piruzyan wrote a cookbook which he said someone asked for to give to Fidel Castro?" That's even more awkward, I'd suggest... that the Armenian politicianAram Piruzyan said the USSR's head of state asked for copies of his cookbook to give to Fidel Castro?1brianm7 (talk)18:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it is of interest to only fans of the soap. It is extremely rare for television shows to have an all black cast. The name of the show could be removed if needed, or it could move to ALT4. But I really doubt that this will only interest fans of the show. The fact that she debuted in a long running role in an episode which featured an all black cast is interesting.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)18:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean exactly? Wouldn't removing the name of the show give the impression that Hollyoaks was also the first series Dawn Hope starred in... altogether (which isn't the case)?Barbalalaika 🐌09:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree about the hook here. While it may be rare, the hook as written seems to be more about Hollyoaks than Dawn Hope. If anything, the hook would work if it was specifically about that episode, but probably not so much if it's about just Hope. I also don't think that a version that doesn't name the series works here either given it would make the hook too vague.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about...
… that Dawn Hope debuted on Hollyoaks along with an entirely Black cast?
@ManOfTheArk,Dclemens1971, andJuniperChill: Nice work on this article, a few things: the claimThe freight line was opened by theBaltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1886 and is now owned and operated byCSX Transportation. will need a citation at the end of the line.In addition, a freight rail line known as thePhiladelphia Subdivision hugs the east bank, leaving little room for a trail. makes it sound like there isn't a trail, and "Users" inUsers have views of the river sounds like a weird choice of wording. Additionally, I removed"unique" from the design section as I didn't think it added much encyclopedically while in quotes.HurricaneZetaC17:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ManOfTheArk isn't onwiki every day so I'll tackle this in the interest of not having it pulled, @HurricaneZeta. Added a cite to the first issue, changed tense in the second case. "Users" is a the standard term for patrons of trails (because use of a trail can encompass riding, walking, running, etc. and thus a generic term is needed - seeTrail for reference). Your edit is fine. Should be good to go.Dclemens1971 (talk)03:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there is any meaningful difference between vtubers and other creatives. I’ve operated under and made the article under the logic that it is best thought of as a pseudonym. I think it’s fairly obvious if you replace her name with Banksy and ask if that is fine.1brianm7 (talk)19:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is a person says something and what it means. I don't think the position that, becauseWP:OR says they are putting up a false persona, it is fictional carries any water. The source is talking about the performer and says the performer says it and this is what it means.
I've said my piece on how the Takanashi Kiara hook was obviously not fictional and it was wrongly pulled (to which no one disagreed), I'd best not belabor it (and it is plainly not relevant here).1brianm7 (talk)21:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I got a bit heated (or at least I feel like it), apologies. I still think the hook is fine, but here's a slight amendment if needed:that Inugami Korone's catchphrase "yubi yubi", which calls for her fans to cut off their fingers and give them to her, has been called bizarre?1brianm7 (talk)22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with the current hook outside of that, but sure. I was just thinking that since the VTuber isn'treal (the performer is) it may not be in the real-world.HurricaneZetaC22:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A vtuber personality may be a creative work, but their output and fans are real-world. Consider a musician who uses a stage name.CMD (talk)01:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to think of a way to say that but I utterly failed and so didn't. It's a lot more clear than whatever I said above. Thank you.1brianm7 (talk)02:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 22. We have a total of 435 nominations, of which 261 have been approved, a gap of 174 nominations that has increased in size by 24 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)15:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This page would normally be archived tomorrow, but only 30% of the articles originally listed have been reviewed, so I'm posting here to extend the time until archiving by five days. I've also added two nominations from December that now need a new reviewer. Please keep reviewing!BlueMoonset (talk)16:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that all the Indigenous languages of the Australian continent may have descended froma common ancestor spoken around 6,000 years ago?
@Ikuzaf,The Robot Parade, andTarnishedPath: The lead of this article seemingly contradicts the hook ("... proposed common ancestor of nearly all Australian Aboriginal languages."). And perhaps this is my ignorance, but I'm also not seeing the difference between the phrasings "Australian Aboriginal languages" and "Indigenous languages of the Australian continent". Can this be resolved either way?—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69, previously the hook stated that they did decend. I promoted wording that states they may have decended. This is the same as starting that it is proposed. Regarding the phrasing of "Australian Aboriginal languages" and "Indigenous languages of the Australian continent", just different ways of saying the same thing. If you think that one wording reads better than an other I have no issue with change, but Ikuzaf might have more to add as the nominator.TarnishedPathtalk23:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification; I was also referring to the "all" in the hook against the "nearly all" in the article. If those two phrasings refer to essentially the same group of languages, I would assume the hook is incorrect?—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)23:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can see what you mean. The languages which aren't proposed to have descended from the proto language are ones which aren't from the mainland.
Do we know if this is a mainstream argument or theory rather than one that doesn't have mainstream support yet? Saying "may" without context might give the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing it or at least that it's mainstream. If it's already well-accepted then the hook can run as is, but if not maybe we could change the hook to say "it has been proposed that..."?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing the may with "it has been proposed that..." doesn't change the meaning much for me, so I'm easy.
The two linguists who published the book, Robert Mailhammer and Mark Harvey, are thoroughly within the mainstream of Australian linguistics. They received anAustralian Research Council funding grant to write their book. And, as I hope I have shown in the body of the article, the idea that the languages of the mainland are descended from a common ancestor is a thoroughly mainstream one that goes back decades. I expect that there may be arguments about the specific details/validity of the reconstruction, but proto-Australian is not at all a fringe idea.Ikuzaf (talk)06:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A solid-looking scholarly source in the article states in the introduction that "it is generally assumed that all Australian languages are ultimately related ..." (Koch & Nordlinger 2014, p. 4) when discussing previous scholarship in Aboriginal linguistics, which I looked at while queuing the set and thought was a good enough verification of the hook.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Her total is actually a bit over that in all 3 weight classes she ever lifted at, but I don't have a single source that says that. I did have a source that says that she lost weight to get to 25, so that's what I went with. . She did most (24, I think? I'm in a plane now will soon lose Internet) of her records at one weight class, then lost weight to get to 25, then gained to get to 26 or 7. -GRuban (talk)00:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The source you quoted in the nomination states that she had already set some records before the weight-cutting, and then "This brings her number of all-time world records in strength sports up to 25." I would assume this means only part of those 25 were in the lower weight class.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)00:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas There's an approved hook for Brunson. There are what I think are better hooks in the nom, but they require independent approval. (I am not a huge fan of the banana ice cream angle favored by the nominator but I think it crosses the threshold of DYKINT.)Dclemens1971 (talk)12:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I've never had banana ice cream, so I find that flavor interesting in part, but I don't find it interesting by itself. I think the hooks still need work.Viriditas (talk)21:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This suddenly triggered a memory about a discussion about the formulation of banana flavors in the scientific literature that was entertained several years back.Viriditas (talk)22:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thepharoah17,Onceinawhile, andTarnishedPath: thedescribed as the street that never sleeps comes from one news headline. PerWP:HEADLINE, these aren't reliable, and that extends to statements like this. If that phrase is removed, it is just a depressing contentious topic area hook and doesn't meetWP:DYKINT, and I doubt the current hook does either. Any ideas for a new hook?HurricaneZetaC15:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that in 2017, it was said that 10,000 people gathered onAl-Rashid Street every day?
For the article, the "city that never sleeps" part needs to be cut in the section header and its mention in the prose since it also falls intoWP:HEADLINE. Also, it says that it's the public relations office that gave this number in the article, while the source says it's one person affiliated with them (the manager IIRC).HurricaneZetaC23:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123 andDaniloDaysOfOurLives: I pinged you in the edit summary where I changed "Singapore" to "State of Singapore", but encountered a bigger issue: the source was published in 1962 when the entity the page covers only existed from 1963 to 1965; thus, I don't think the source would be describing the same entity as the article.HurricaneZetaC17:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The plans for union went back perhaps to the Second World War, but publicly seriously from 1961. Thus the Singapore of 1962 was very much expected to be the Singapore of 1963, so to speak. That said, the source does state it in future tense, so perhaps the hook should be shifted to future tense? "... that the first Malaysian Prime Minister stated that Singapore would be the "New York" of the country?CMD (talk)18:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TechnoSquirrel69 can you please return the hook to its original approved version. I have had something like 50+ hooks that have included "Green Bay Packers" in it and it is very common to use team names in hooks. Not sure why this would be any different, especially because NFL teams are now branching out even more internationally. Being generic with "a professional football team" if anything will lessen the interestingness of the hook and cause people to gloss over it more, whereas seeing that its a well-known NFL team worth billions of dollars will most definitely cause additional interest. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @17:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: I see where you're coming from, but to me the team name is still specialist knowledge to American football fans. (Personally, I think the only reason I know the name is because of your FLs, ha!) However, I'd appreciate additional input from other editors on this. It would be helpful to get a perspective from a non-American.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the hook is not that it doesn't mention the Packers, but rather that the hook uses "football" without context. The hook is vague on where it takes place, and while context could assume the US, it's vague enough that it could theoretically be anywhere (meaning readers might assume "soccer" as the football in question). There are two solutions to this: either change "professional football team" to "professional American football team", or mention "Wisconsin" or even "Green Bay" somewhere in the hook (for example, "Green Bay, Wisconsin's City Stadium"). I'm personally more in favor with the former because I think the hook is interesting even if the team in question wasn't the Packers. Another possibility could be to say "an NFL team" and only making the Packers a piped link, since I imagine far more people internationally know the NFL than the Packers specifically.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"NFL team" was also a phrasing I was considering; I wondered if that might still be a little too America-centric, but you make a fair point on the term being more recognizable. I'd be fine switching to that.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sex tape thing? I don't have time to look into it atm, but as an avid...enjoyer of Serbian politics my guess is that this politician would be pleased that we're exposing the government's unethical tactics.JustARandomSquid (talk)18:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How does switching to ALT0... that during the 2023 Belgrade City Assembly election campaign, former mayor Aleksandar Šapić presented a construction project with images taken from a Salt Lake City school? sound? That seems the most interesting to me without those BLP and DYKVAR considerations.HurricaneZetaC19:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RegardingWP:DYKBLP, no living person is named in the hook. RegardingWP:DYKVAR it states that we shouldn't have more than two hooks of the same topic in a set (in this case sex). So I see no issue, although I have no objection to it being moved to another set.TarnishedPathtalk23:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(You see, now we're going 2-a-day, I kind of want Annie Knight kicked back by a couple of days.) ALT0 seems fine from a BLP perspective, but I'll assess it properly in the morning.--Launchballer23:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with kicking back a couple of days, though if that happens I would highly recommend Knight stay in the image hook. Image hooks with good looking women always get a metric fucktonne of views.TarnishedPathtalk02:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped this intoQueue 3. Just noting that I considered the hook from a BLP perspective while queueing the set and didn't personally find anything wrong with it. IfWikipedia ran this person's sex tape on the Main Page, now, that would be a problem, but merely stating the fact that someone else did isn't.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)02:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath,Launchballer,Moondragon21, andEpicgenius: I want to ask about the current hook for Annie Knight and Drake Von. I fully understand Wikipedia isnot censored and support DYK hooks covering a wide range of topics, including ones with adult themes. However, the "1,000 men in a day" framing strikes me as unusually explicit for MP - particularly in the image slot. This might just be me being overly cautious, but I would appreciate other perspectives (even if you disagree) to get an informal "temperature check" while this is in the queue. Thanks,Zzz plant (talk)20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subjects and those like them are known for this sort of stuff. I see no issue, particularly given that there is nothing graphic about the image itself.TarnishedPathtalk23:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There have been numerous discussions on this page and at ERRORS and they all found consensuses that running hardcore pornography hooks is fine. As for the hook being promotional, the hook is exactly as promotional as any other product we run.--Launchballer23:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the hook is exactly as promotional as any other product we run
There is some value to making hooks explicit, in that it gives an indication of the topic before a reader clicks through.CMD (talk)05:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It may be okay to not want sexually explicit images or content on the Main Page itself (I remember the Belle Delphine hook controversy from four years ago), but I don't think merely mentioning the concept of sex falls into that category. –Epicgenius (talk)14:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's also an age factor. Once you hit 30, sex-related content becomes somewhat mundane or boring. My guess is that these kinds of hooks appeal to younger people, which is fine, there's a lot of content here that is age-related, this is no different. I mean let's face it, if I was 18, I don't think I would be all that interested in classical music hooks, hooks about medicare and retirement, or hooks about the unusual intricacies of governance and policy and procedures in Vanuatu. That's just the way of the world.Viriditas (talk)21:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be useful to have some sort of clarification of what "Bonnie Blue's "1,000 men in a day" challenge" is instead of just assuming that the reader is aware of the nature of the stunt.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)21:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that's an unreasonable assumption given that there was a period last year where Blue's article was getting more views thanBeyonce's (according toThe Economist), but one solution to that would be to replace 'challenge' with 'gangbang'?--Launchballer21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of moving this back a few sets because it would have hit the main page in less than 13 hours. With the benefit of a night's kip, I think adding 'the sex workers' or possibly 'the porn stars' would solve the problem - it says 'this is probably sexual'.--Launchballer11:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One issue with the hook is that it's not particularly interesting. However, there's more of an problem - the hook suggests that Knight has announced an event, but the article suggests that she already did it last year (Inspired by both Blue's 1,000 men challenge and Lily Phillips's 101 men challenge, Knight had sex with 583 men in six hours on 18 May 2025).Black Kite (talk)11:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found in interesting. I wouldn't have promoted it otherwise. Re the refractory period, in the Pride.com interview he doesn't state that he plans on ejaculating for each and every of the 1,000. Male performers don't ejaculate in each and every scene, there are industry techniques at play rather than natural occurrences.TarnishedPathtalk11:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that and edited my comment. The hook does still suggest that Knight has announced an event for the future, though, which is not backed up by her article.Black Kite (talk)11:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also found it interesting and likely to be considered such by readers. Sex hooks always get high views. As for the point that wasn't removed when the above was reworded, one solution would be ... that Bonnie Blue's "1,000 men in a day" challenge inspired an event and a planned event by fellow sex workersAnnie Knight(pictured) andDrake Von?--Launchballer11:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning is only slightly different to what was promoted, so it checks out. I'd substitute it in, but given I promoted the nomination previously it should probably be someone else.TarnishedPathtalk03:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the quotes are about 3/4th the size of a paragraph in a section with three paragraphs, and there isn't much distinctive in them. Smaller phrases can be quoted.HurricaneZetaC18:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions as to how they should be paraphrased? I likewise don't see the need, but I could be open to it if a good paraphrase is proposed.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support; if someone could hit the button just after midnight UTC today, that would be great. Thank you,HurricaneZeta, for your hard work queuing all these sets! I would only ask that you pace yourself and make sure you're not burning out. :)—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the switch to 12-hour cycles when the bot updates in a few minutes. Since it's less time-sensitive to activate unreviewed backlog mode, and likely more controversial, I think we should wait for a few more opinions on that.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)23:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the hooks proposed in the nomination are superlative hooks (ALT0 is a "first" hook, ALT1 is an "only" hook). The first hook is the stronger hook in terms of interest, but because of how exceptional the claim is, input is requested regarding sourcing and a search for counterexamples. Normally, it would have been suggested that new hooks be proposed, but with the article being relatively short (less than 1600 characters) and unable to be expanded further, the alternative is rejection.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Proselytism is explicitly about conversion, where evangelization includes teaching within those who are already believers, which is much of the work the priest pilots were founded to do - flying to remove villages in Alaska to say Mass, etc. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs19:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in here to see if my thinking on this is wrong. In regards to promotingTemplate:Did you know nominations/Le Roseau d'Or, it seems silly to me to run this book cover image as it provides almost no information to the reader. Does the promoter have the discretion to run this hook without the image in this kind of situation?Viriditas (talk)20:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas That image isWP:DYKDIVERT (tangentially related book cover). Even if it isn't we have a limited amount of image slots, so there's no need to promote the image along with it, and nominators understand that unless they make a special request for the image.HurricaneZetaC20:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Was I wrong to promote the astronomy image in prep 5? That can also be a bit tricky since such images are quite poor. However, I thought the image was unique and interesting in that context.Viriditas (talk)20:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone should pull that astro hook I put in the first slot that is now in queue 5. I forgot to check mobile and it looks terrible. It should be swapped with a better image hook.Viriditas (talk)04:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do something about it tomorrow morning, but Done, swapped with the top prep and will check if I can replace the image. I also had to pull another hook from that prepHurricaneZetaC04:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't believe that you haveto knowBartók, - there's a link if you don't know him, and I think that he and his work - not only composing but being a pioneer in recording and collection Hungarian folk music - is good to know for everybody. Mentioning him gives the instrument a much broader context than just say something about a rather primitive instrument, - you have to mention bag-pipesomehow as the closest instrument people may know. --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I love these hooks, and I do find them interesting, but I'm not certain they are directly supported in the article itself. Can you check?Viriditas (talk)21:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll try to do so from now on. But the hook also has to make the cimpoi a major part of it, which it doesn't. I can imagine the boldlink being on Bartók instead.HurricaneZetaC22:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Béla Bartók documented this phenomenon in 1912–1913, noting numerous dance melodies in which the fluier in Bihor, as well as the fluier and the violin in Maramureș imitate cimpoi playing. He suggested that this reflected an earlier stage in which the cimpoi served as the primary dance instrument. This interest later influenced Bartók’s own compositions, such as the first movement of his Sonatina for solo piano (1915), titled Dudások (“Bagpipers”), and the Musette movement of Out of Doors (1926).
I find the hook immensely interesting for many different reasons, but I admit it can be improved for the general reader. I will attempt to do so now.Viriditas (talk)22:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that the sound of theRomanian cimpoi (pictured), a type of pastoral bagpipe, was often mimicked by folk violins and shepherd's flutes, inspiring Béla Bartók to imitate it on the piano?
Several different ways we can do this. I don't agree with Gerda about the linking, so that's going to be a point of disagreement up front.Viriditas (talk)23:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While the new ALT is better, I'm not sure if the mention of Bartók is necessary here given that it makes it seem more like a hook about Bartók than the cimpoi. The wording could work if it was a double hook instead: is there still time to bring Bartók to DYK standards?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read it that way at all, and yes, Bartók is necessary for the hook. And given his importance in music history and role in ethnomusicology, saying that it isn't necessary to mention Bartók is unusual in itself. And no, it isn't a hook about Bartók, it's a hook showing how the cimpoi significantly influenced Bartók.Viriditas (talk)08:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should have some kind of informal rule for these kinds of disputes, where the relevant WikiProject/noticeboard is notified, and we wait for their independent findings, and/or we recommend the nom take it to GAN where additional scrutiny will iron out the issues.Viriditas (talk)22:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas A potential issue with taking it to a WikiProject or GAN as opposed to the reliable sources noticeboard is local consensus differing from the broader community consensus. WP:PRIMARY being the particular consensus at issue here. To be clear, I'm not set on a particular outcome here. Just bringing up a potential objection.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)13:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the counterarguments (I was around when they were first made long ago). The way I look at it is as a kind of non-binding peer review that we can take or leave. If you want to see what a local consensus actually looks like, have a look at the bottom ofTalk:Freedom Caucus, where I've been told that normal policies and guidelines for editing no longer apply. Enjoy.Viriditas (talk)20:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Very new article with coverage under development so not yet ready for GAN. Plus as perWP:DISCOGRAPHY, primary existence is enough. And this is not a BLP to have a strict policy implementation. If there is anything lacking the fact check, feel free to ask and I may provide the findings. Thank you!M.Billoo15:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Billoo2000 important correction for you:Any statement about living persons is a BLP statement, whether the subject of the article or not. Thus, any primary sources must be from the subject of the claim themselves (which can include closely affiliated with them and acting on their behalf).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)00:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's about the critical commentary of his character, which is one step removed from a discussion about the character in-universe.Viriditas (talk)22:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you came to this conclusion, but I believe it should be fine, because it's citing critical commentary identifying his uselessness as a running joke rather than a primary source. -Cukie Gherkin (talk)22:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The hook could easily be seen as a DYKFICTION violation even if the source is still critical commentary. It might be better to contextualize the hook and say something like "has been described" or something to that effect.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that is even possible. The character's uselessnessis the critical commentary. How does it even come close to violating dykfiction? ELI5...Compare with critical commentary aboutJar Jar Binks. It's the same idea, no violation that even comes close.Viriditas (talk)00:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say itwas a DYKFICTION violation, I said that otherscould see it as one. There's a fine line between a character being created from the outset as being stupid and one who is described as stupid: thinkPatrick Star from SpongeBob. Without additional context, the lines can be blurry. The solution is a reword, not a new hook entirely.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have other things to do, so this will be my last comment on this matter. I think the hook "... that Ted Wheeler's uselessness is a running joke in the television show Stranger Things?" is perfect and requires no changes, and I wish I had come up with it myself. I get that other people have trouble with hooks, and there's varying interpretations when it comes to interest, but I just don't see any changes needed here. I get that you do. I will leave it at that.Viriditas (talk)00:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "She interpreted negative characters including Runa in Radúz and Mahulena, Zarema in The Fountain of Bakhchisarai, Lady Copper Mountain in The Stone Flower, and Lady Macbeth in Macbeth." - Juliet (Shakespeare/Prokofiev) is probably one of the best-known characters of world culture, but we could drop the adjective if you have trouble with it. --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Juliet is quite well known, but it would need to be in the article. How do you feel about "that ballerina Miroslava Pešíková (pictured) portrayed both Romeo & Juliet's Juliet and negative characters such as Lady Macbeth?"--Launchballer09:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually a bit hesitant about the hook. Isn't this basically a "ballerina does job" hook? DYK tends to frown on "person doing their job" hooks these days, and while I know highlighting the contrast helps, I'm not sure if that actually makes the hook anything else instead.
In any case, given that a different hook angle may be needed here entirely, along with us running two-sets-a-day for a while meaning less time to discuss, I've bumped this off to Prep 6 to give us more time to discuss.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)11:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is just my ignorance of ballet, but "Did you know a dancer could dance the roles of both protagonists and antagonists?" does not strike me as interesting. It seems intuitive that a notable dancer was capable of dancing a wide range of roles.Dclemens1971 (talk)21:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. If a ballerina, or any actor for that matter, is good or well-regarded, you'd expect them to do a wide variety of roles, both good and bad. It could only potentially be interesting if an actor is particularly famous for being typecast and does something else (for example, an actor being best known for playing heroes playing the villain, or vice-versa). This does not seem to be the case for Pešíková.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One issue with the article is that, other than the "she played 47 roles at the National Theater" fact, there isn't anything else in the article that works as a hook. The article is pretty short and is largely a filmography in prose, with almost no information about her personal life (other than a brief mention of her husband and death). This makes it difficult to propose a replacement hook or hook fact unless the article is expanded further. This could be a case of the subject/article simply not being a good fit for DYK at this time.
I'd like to submit a DTK nomination for the Israel Keyes article, as I've helped get it to GA status. There appears to be a previous nomination, therefore I'm not sure what to call the page to nominate it. Could someone assist me?Ktkvtsh(talk)20:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first things you learn about Buddhism is the enormous number of myths and legends, so many in fact, that I once heard it said that it's impossible for any living human Buddhist scholar to have read and learned them all (more so considering how much of the literature has been lost and destroyed over the last 2500 years). With that said, if these legends are sourced to academic experts and are given notability by scholars, then they can conceivably be used to form good hooks. However, the problem with these noms is that they are fairly common legends with no indication of notability or why we should take any interest.Viriditas (talk)00:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Southeast Asian traditions are different and are often regarded as having semi-legendary status and mixed with real life facts. They should not be judged solely by Western criteria. Please respect our traditions. If semi-historical figures are to be considered fiction or myth, then the same standard would have to be applied to figures such as Jesus and the Virgin Mary as well.Hteiktinhein (talk)05:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If I saw a hook along the lines of '... that Jesus turned water into wine?' I would consider that not to be DYKFICTION compliant even with the leeway afforded to mythology.TarnishedPathtalk06:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Deities and gods are subjects of worship and are almost always considered notable on Wikipedia. Why are subjects related to a deity being treated as DYKFICTION?Hteiktinhein (talk)06:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the three hooks are not suitable for DYK, please indicate which ones here and I will replace them with verifiable historical facts one by one. Thank you.Hteiktinhein (talk)06:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't see any of them as suitable. Others may see things differently to me, which is why I brought it up for discussion. I would suggest that you need new hooks which are more centered on real world facts. E.g., for Princess Thonbanhla you could have something about her being honoured annually duringBuddhist lent.TarnishedPathtalk07:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever heard it referred to as rains or rains retreat, not Buddhist lent. Anyway, I think the major problem here isn't religion, legends, myth, folklore, or anything else, but the lazy way the nom is going about writing and framing these bios. If this could be fixed, restructured, and written from a more rigorous, reliably sourced based approach, this would not be a problem. As it stands now, the nom is producing these bios in a way that makes them sound like Disney characters, not biographical figures. The problem at hand here is that the framing is all wrong. The nom can't both assert they are legendary and real at the same time. The way to fix this, is to rely on established critical commentary about the figures, and to have some distancing between the people, the legends, and the reality established by scholars, then to write hooks based on scholarly commentary, addressing the intersection between the historical figure and the folklore, if necessary. Without this framing and distance, it sounds like the nom is trying to skirt DYKFICTION by arguing this material is both mythological and real, without ever establishing a baseline for the historicity or the mythology. The nom argues that we are engaging in western bias, but the reality is that the academic literature is full of acceptable sources on this subject, but the nom appears too lazy to do the necessary research, appealing to their lack of time and focus on school on their user pages. So at the end of the day, this is a sourcing problem, and I do wonder if the current sources they are using are even acceptable when they are properly evaluated. Finally, I say to the nom, no, Southeast Asian traditions are not different at all, they are probably identical to ours, but take many different forms. In fact, here in the United States, we are chock full of historical figures with semi-legendary status. One of the first things we learn when we graduate elementary school, is almost everything we were taught were lies. George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree, Paul Bunyan wasn't real, the American Civil War was never resolved, and "freedom" isn't one thing, it has multiple facets known as positive and negative freedom, and we aren't taught these things at all. Your country and culture, and the countries and cultures of everyone else on the planet are no different.Viriditas (talk)23:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about Pyapaung Taung Shinma, but Maung Me Khaung is an actual historical figure, and his footprint became a temple and is still housed there today. So that is not fiction. As for Princess Thonbanhla, the DYK hook is based on the death of a historical princess as recorded by historians. I do not see any issue of fiction here.Hteiktinhein (talk)06:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The world record for foot size is a smidgen over 40cm and you're telling us that a foot size that is somewhere beteen 44 and 53cm is fact? I'm sorry, but if you're going to make that claim I'll need reliable sources (not religious texts).TarnishedPathtalk06:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9,Viriditas, andCrisco 1492: I like this hook the most out of all the alts, but I don't think we can call someone who built one church and planned one road a church builder and a road designer. How is
It is obviously probably way too early to discuss this, but this is more of asking if there is community interest for this, or at least if it would not be a controversial proposal. July 4, 2026 is the US Semiquincentennial, an anniversary that is being promoted by various organizations and the US government. The 250th anniversary of anything is also widely seen as an important milestone.
On the one hand, we have done something similar before with the Canada Day set several years ago, doing an all-Canada set. There was also last year's Papua New Guinea set, which was well-received. On the other hand, this is a US-focused set we are talking about, and DYK's (and really Wikipedia's) focus on the US has been controversial in the past.
This discussion isnot about discussing what should be in a July 4 US set, what themes to focus on, or what articles to run. This is alsonot a formal proposal for such a set. This is merely asking the community if we should even run such a set in the first place. Given the recent controversy with the William & Mary College set, it would good to first discuss first if the community even thinks if it is a good idea, or there should be no such set at all. In addition, it might also be a good idea to start a parallel discussion about this at the Village Pump so that at least non-DYK regulars can chime in and hopefully can help prevent another W&M case. At least if we have this discussion early, we can have an idea on what the temperature and interest is for the idea.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, though if the US-centrism is a problem we should try to make up for it by doing one or two non-US/Western sets. The US and even the narrower concepts of American independence/patriotism are way broader than W&M.HurricaneZetaC01:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This 4th of July in particular. But I would challenge us not just to pull off a US-themed set - up to four of each daily set is US-centric. Given the significant anniversary, I would encourage a focus on the American Revolution and if possible on the Declaration of Independence in particular -- its people (severalarticles on its signers are still start-class), its history, its ideas, its outcomes, its defects, its worldwide influence.This section of our article is a great place to start with potential topics that can be expanded, newly created or GA'd. If we do this, I would also encourage us to allocate at least three hooks and maybe four for non-US persons and topics. The Declaration of Independence is a US topic on paper but given its influence around the world, it would be feasible to build a typicallydiverse set even with a relatively narrow focus. (SeeZou Rong for an example; Zou was strongly influenced by the US Declaration in his anti-Manchu revolutionary activity.) I will sign up for a least one article for this set and to assist with reviews of other hooks for it.Dclemens1971 (talk)19:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda meh about having a July 4 set under normal circumstances, but the thought I had was "if it will ever do it, it would be now." Having at least half of the set be non-US related might be a good compromise to help address any US-centrism concerns.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of tying it to the Declaration of Independence/July 4 is that the Declaration is tributary to the universal human rights movement and has been adapted in so many different countries. It would be a set that educates readers about this particular anniversary while not being bound to a particular country. (And I agree with you that we should not generally do a July 4 special set but that one is appropriate for the major anniversary year.)Dclemens1971 (talk)00:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've run two sets that were coincidentally American (I don’t think anyone would have had an objection if any non-American civil rights stuff was in MLK Day, but that’s not what happened). I see no reason we should prohibit it happening here. Also,@Narutolovehinata5: are you a no vote? It looked to me like you forgot to sign and so it was put at the very bottom (under no), and then dclemens assumed you forgot to format it correctly and added the hash.1brianm7 (talk)19:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we are able to run Canada, PNG, and (in 2011) Indonesia-dominant sets for their independence days, I see no reason to exclude the United States. Yes, we have a plethora of US hooks at any given time. At the same time, we should try to be consistent in treating important national milestones regardless of country. — Chris Woodrich (talk)19:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Like what the person on top said, we have ran themed sets for various other countries before. Notably, this year marks a monumental moment in the United States, as it is celebrating it's250th birthday, so it makes sense to make a US themed set. Like what other people said, we can incorporate DYKs about how theDeceleration of Independence is significant.EvanTech10 (talk)03:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/National bank veto has landed at the AI Cleanup Noticeboardin this thread. Given the current state of the article (and the fact that a lot of work has now been created for others to review each and every claim and source within the article or move to draftify or delete it): Can we just go ahead and reject the DYK nomination at this point? Notifying article reviewer @Cbl62.
I don't understand what's wrong with the book summaries in my article; I've been writing book articles with reviews summarized like this for years ("like this", to clarify, means a reception section summarizing reviews, usually one per paragraph unless they are capsule reviews, and yes, they will have roughly similar structure), and they've been regularly DYKed. Some examples of my past DYKs with identical structure (I don't think my style has changed much, although I do experiment with different spellchecking tools likeGrammarly):September 2020,April 2021,October 2022,May 2023,August 2023, etc. This style, if you want to call it that, has also been accepted for my relevant GAs (and their DYKs), ex. this is from last year:Małe zielone ludziki, orThe Ugly Black Bird from 2024 (I can find more examples, but I hope that's enough). On a side note:food-for-thought, an interesting article about why some non-native speakers "sound like ChatGPT".Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Inklings reviews do read like an llm has had a go at them. However, there are more significant issues with that article, noticeably that the Reception section is the only part with any sourcing, and that includes the lead which is not covered in the article.CMD (talk)16:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference to the paragraph that was missing it. I don't see any other parts that need a reference (table of contents can be referenced to the book itself but generally we don't require references for this type of content; ditto, the list of editions is effectively referenced to their respective ISBNs which link to Worldcat).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if this makes a difference here, but n.b.: any text copied from a public domain source, including an LLM, does not count towards the length minimum.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)17:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find them all of them interesting, but I am not the most experienced in recognizing the best DYK. This is the reason that i provide multiple hooks for people to give feedback. So i leave it to others on what may be best. ALT2 is also good.A.Cython(talk)20:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the "lost knowledge" angle was the most interesting of the bunch, but I think my wording threw TechnoSquirrel off. That, or they really dislike Indiana Jones.Viriditas (talk)00:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the lost knowledge itself could be an interesting hook, but this hook focuses on the fact that it was lost by a certain time. That, in and of itself, I don't find all that interesting. That's all water under the bridge with regard to the DYKMAJOR issue, though. Do you have a preference for any other hook here?—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)01:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... that Polish steampunk tabletop franchiseWolsung includes a board game, a miniature wargame, a role-playing game and two anthologies of stand-alone fiction?
ALT0 as written could not work because, at least right now, the article only cites a single review. Ideally it would need multiple sources to confirm the "community" aspects. Otherwise, only the following revision is possible:
ALT0a ... that one writer described the gameWolsung as "legendary" among the Polish role-playing community for its prolonged development?
I am fine with ALT0a, although the ALT0 can be confirmed with other reviews (three in the first part of the sentence), which did not use the word legendary, but commented on the fact that the game became well known for its delayed status. That said, ALT0a is, as I said, fine. For copyedit, I'll pingUser:Nihil novi, although for me the sentence "Third in line of Wolsung products" seems fine, but I revised it as follows:[1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta: Sorry about that. I thought that ping was about toggling for the prep/queue's backlog mode. Hopefully we can sustain both backlog modes for a little bit to move some hooks through the system. I also see that you have also been promoting lots of preps to queues: please don't burn yourself out trying to clear the backlog, as other admin and prep-to-queuers are here to help.Z1720 (talk)03:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll take a break from it now. I'm not really burned out from it, in fact it's kind of fun, but it's also all I'm doing on-wiki at the moment so I'll focus on other things.HurricaneZetaC03:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸07:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done.HurricaneZetaC16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}